My letter to Time magazine

It should be pretty self-explanatory.

To Whom It May Concern:

The cover story about Ann Coulter by John Cloud from your recent issue contains an unfortunate untruth:

Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with facts, and if you Google the words "Ann Coulter lies," you will drown in results. But I didn't find many outright Coulter errors.

I write on a small blog, and though googling the words "Ann Coulter lies" won't take you to my website, googling the words "Ann Coulter liar" will.  Result #9 is a link to a piece that I wrote

http://hereswhatsleft.typepad.com/home/2005/03/ann_coulter_is_.html

in which I debunked a column in which Ann Coulter claimed that the NYTimes editorial page was intentionally outing gay relatives of prominent conservatives.  As I showed in that piece, and in subsequent pieces, the NYTimes was doing no such thing.  She was referring to a column in which Dan Savage discussed gay relatives of prominent conservatives who had publicly outed themselves (one at a gay rights rally, one in OUT Magazine; a third works for a gay rights organization). 

Coulter's factual claim was wrong, as was her more general intention, which was to smear the liberals:

Outing relatives of conservatives is nothing but ruthless intimidation: Stop opposing our agenda – or your kids will get it. This is a behavioral trope of all totalitarians[.]

I write this not for my own personal satisfaction so much as because your reporter's claim that he "didn't find many outright Coulter errors," means that he is either a little sloppy or intentionally overlooking what he found; either way, it's very poor reporting.  I am only one of many, many people who has corrected Coulter's factual errors and/or apparently intentionally lies.

I am not, like some of my colleagues, a blog triumphalist.  But in the case of Ms. Coulter (and others like her), whose work has been riddled with errors, blogs and other websites serve a useful function: to call attention to these errors when the mainstream media does not.  It is especially irritating, then, to see a mainstream media outlet willfully ignore the work done by these online sources; in a sense, you're ignoring the people who are doing your job for you.

I do hope any future references to Ms. Coulter in your publication will be a little more accurate.

I look forward to being ignored. 

(via Atrios.)

-- Michael

Comments

[MikeS]

Michael:

While your letter is eloquent and persuasive (and about 100% accurate) you don’t think you’re going to actually get a reply, do you?

MikeS

[HWL]

nope. haven't gotten one so far. don't expect to get one.

[Carole Wolfram]

John Cloud,

As is typical of the elite liberal press, your article on Ann Coulter is demeaning, rash, rude, and in the most part untrue.

Not only, did you try to box Ann Coulter into a neat ultraconservative corner, but your use of rarely used words only proves that you did not write this article for the masses. It was obviously written for your fellow elitist journalists primarily located in the Northeast...and one wonders why George Bush was reelected, the Republicans gained in the house and the Senate...DUH! It is elitists like you that will guarantee the future success of the ultra-right wing, (Christian) in all future elections. You've done yourself "proud."

Carole Wolfram

[HWL]

can anyone tell if that comment is a joke? or if that person was just confused?